Title: Phytotoxicity response of environmental plants to pesticides
CITATION THUMBNAILS PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00076439/00001
 Material Information
Title: Phytotoxicity response of environmental plants to pesticides
Physical Description: Book
Creator: Reinert, James Arnold,
Publisher: Agricultural Research Center, IFAS, University of Florida
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: UF00076439
Volume ID: VID00001
Source Institution: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier: oclc - 144512283

Full Text









UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IFAS

Ft. Lauderdale ARC Research Report FL-76-3

Phytotoxicity Response of Environmental Plants to Pesticides
James A. Reinert and P. L. Neel
University of Florida, IFAS
ARC, Ft. Lauderdale, Fla. HUN LIBRARY
December 28, 1976
AUG 14 1978

Introduction
I.F.A.S.- Univ. of Florida

Pesticides* are used frequently in nurseries for the production oT

quality environmental (ornamental) plants and-by home-owners-to protect

their landscape plantings from numerous phytophagous mites and insects.

Oil emulsions are often added to insecticides and miticides to enhance

their effectiveness, however there is little data on the phytotoxicity of

these combinations on environmental plants. These studies were made in an

effort to gain phytotoxicity information on environmental-plant species

commonly grown in-south Florida.---In the following 3-experiments, insec---

ticides, miticides, FC-435 citrus spray oil-,-and 2 of these insecticides

each in combination with FC-435 oil were evaluated. Similar phytotoxicity

evaluations with other insecticides;:-but no insecticide in combination

with oil emulsions, have been done and have.proven to-be very useful to

the ornamentals industry, home-owners, and pesticide producers. Plants

used in these tests are listed in Tables 2, 4, and 5.



*Mention of a trademark name or a proprietary product does not constitute a

guarantee or warranty of the product by the University of Florida and does

not imply its approval to the exclusion of other products that may also be

suitable.







EXPERIMENT 1**

Materials and Methods

Phytotoxicity studies on 24 species of environmental plants were

conducted with 12 miticides at the Agricultural Research Center, Ft.

Lauderdale, FL. Tests were conducted during October and November, 1975,

under 57% shade in a wood lath house on well established, rapidly growing

plants in gallon-size black plastic containers. -Plants were grown in a

sand-peat-muck nursery soil mix (1:2:1 by volume), and were fertilized

with a tablespoon of 18-6-12 OsmocoteR plus a teaspoon of Tri-NiteR

secondary plant food before the test was started and did not require ad-

ditional fertilizer during-the test period. Irrigation was supplied, as

needed, by overhead sprinklers. Table 1 gives the miticides and the do-

sages of each that were evaluated.

Table 1. Miticides, formulations and rates of active ingredient per
100 gal of water used in phytotoxicity evaluations.
AI/100 Gal (lb)
Miticides IXz 2XY

AcarabenR 4EC 0.5 1
Chlorobenzilate: -
CGA-12223 10G l.o. o 10x 20x
Di-SystonR 6EC 0.5 1
Disulfoton
FuradanR 10G 10x 20x
Carbofuran
KelthaneR 18.5%EC 0.5 1
Dicofol
MorestanR 25WP_ 0.25 0.5
Oxythioquinox -
Omite" 30WP 1 2
Propargite
Pentac^ 50WP 0.5 1
PlictranR 50WP 0.25 0.5
SystoxR 6EC 0.4 0.8
Demeton
TedionR 50WP 0.25 0.5
Tetradifon
TemikR 10G 10x 20x
Aldicarb
zlX = lbs. active ingredient at manufacturers recommended rate.
Y2X = ibs. active ingredient at twice recommended rate.
XGranular materials applied at given lbs. active ingredient/acre.
**Data previously published as: Reinert, J. A., and P. L. Neel. 1976.
Phytotoxicity of miticides on selected environmental plants. Proc. South,
Nurs. Assoc. Res. Conf. 21:44-7.










Plants in this experiment were arranged into 3 identical blocks of

25 rows each containing 24 plant species. One row of each 3 blocks served

as an untreated check row; the other 24 rows were used for treatments with

the low and high rates of each of the 12 chemicals. This provided plants of

each species for treatment at each rate on 3 different dates: October 27,

November 3, and November 10. Dry foliage was sprayed to the point of run-off

on each date using a 2-gal compressed air sprayer. Plywood shields were used

between plants of different treatments to prevent drift. Plants were watered

sufficiently prir -to the.treatments so-as to allow 24 hours between treatments-

and the next-irrigation.- Phytotoxicity evaluations were made 3 days after-each

application and 16 days-after the November 10-application. Plant damage was----

rated on a 0-5 scale, with_0 representing no apparent damage and 5 very severe

damage. Notes of-the types of-damage observed were also made. Types of foliage

injury symptoms included, tip (T), blade (B), or marginal burn (M); yellowing

and/or mottling-(chlorosis) (C); cupping-and/or leaf deformation -(wrinkling or

distortion of the petiole-or blade) (D).

Results and Discussion

The relative amount and type of injury observed on November 26 on each

plant species are shown in-Table-2. Araucaria, Asparagus, Carissa, Chrysalido-

carpus, Coccoloba, Dizygotheca,-Murraya, and Veitchia were the only species ---

which did not exhibit noticeable injury symptoms to any of the miticides.-

Brassaia, Buscida, Ficus retusa, Jasminum, and Ligustrum were the most sensitive

plants. Chlorobenzilate appeared to cause the most damage to the largest number

(9) of species of any of the 12 chemicals tested. In general the granular for-

mulations of CGA-12223, carbofuran and aldicarb appeared to the the least likely

to cause injury over the widest range of plant materials. Aldicarb did not in-

jure any of the test species.






N
>0
II II

SCD0

D H



,3 r
L 0 0c

0
x



S-"
rt
F-*


II
II

HJ 11






tr

II

ilC


P
pa p




H II

o tn



C0
P
0 <









CD


o'CD
C II
P)
Io <

CD

P-























F- CD
.. CD
*
























0
H 0.
II
II











P)
0 <

SCD










rCD






Ya C

*0


< < a< r0 E t-7h1111t:)' omnn
CDp o P ~. Pi X- P-.. -H P- o o IP
t 1= 0 o* G 0 H r* r- Do %. P* 0 n P.
*0 0 0O 0 tn H P 0 U O o O P P 0 n U )
:r 0o+ p tA C r S t P0 C m O H*0 -' p

P. r- 4 o "o o p r- H o in 00
I P0 r- 0 1 W CD CD PO D Hl
Sc: H'd C D. 0 tn rcD
Sr): i p < P*O O < O i
CD g 0 0 o : iPP p)M p p p P Co p
ld P r0 0 0'd C ( CD H CD H.H -j P
H*CD 0o0 C O 0HtP inC O 0 r -h'r H- 0-
1- 4 (D a *H H.* P* CDeq 0 SDI-h

HI. rC 0d rt rt r P 0

g H I -
tn t








p1 t ,.
U w








a o


oo




M,0
0


l-JOOOOOO OO O010 0 0 -a'.) N000




1' 0 0 r 0 0 0 I-* OOWOOO w e OOO
* 0 0 0 *
tn n
1- C D
U1 t3w


000




CO
o3
w


OWA




0 L.]
O00
3,


000000 CA
0 0.
-3


0 00 C 0
w -3


000000




000000


00




AO


000'-0



000 0-
W -


-3



oo t
0


-3




000'




000l-0


000000














C1 O t1 0 0 0C
U,








o













000000




000000


C0


MOO

C3C









00


000000




000000
C) o c D DCC>)




C)C)CD C> )


l-' 0
0


00000




0O0l-
O 0


000000 W


to


DnD


- ) W(


V u (A PC
0 P. H
UNNP)
C
r) (In CD


0 HP* oa0

'<0 *o 3
t--y (a
r- -
p a -


I-



CD
CD
0
H*
()














So

in
r+

;r3


000oo




000









000




000
0Co C




0C) C




C) C)C


00




00








^ u v, 3l r/)>! -. n o o 0 -l 0 v P 5 O Q- cr p P- <
(D C p) (0 0a Pa o o 0 p (i r P < C0 CPO D"D P. X
H j 0 V O J O d r 0 (A O r a :1 ro r+ PC rt a :3 0
Fi lr P. F- H. O pr_ 0 p rkOq Oq rvq F* t)o J H-D P (tn Q
I-' :j td p V r_ H. H :j i- P pc g J :: m H 0 H. 0 o -ht l W t
F-* t( : r A P) rt p t (D Mi P Lnd l- p i
p.u 0u Q p> P s:: 3 3 r+ t,-.C+ 3 :j o
t-*CS l- 0 n pEpn 00 (


n in t
*A P


00300000 00O0t040000 0000




0 0


0 0000000M0ooO 0-0-0 0-0-0 t3 0 0 0 0




0 C000 N00000000 0--c 000
o:)

wa C) o c- n 0 W
0l k '


000000 30

-3


4
03


-3 0

0 --

) o 0 0o 0 00 0 0 0^ I-'O 00
-3 -3 t -


-3


0000000000000000000




0000000000000000000


0000000000000000000




0000000000000000000


0000000000000000000




OO00OOOOOOOOO 000000
*-3
C> ~ ~ u- CD( )C lC DC D( DC D0 DC DC


CD ~ ~ CDC 0C DI l( lC DtiC DC C


00000




00000


00000




)0000
C) C o C C
CO )C)C


00000


Xn

r+
0
t 7x
XX


I-'









Because plants in this test were growing vigorously and were under

partial shade, they were in a very tender state of growth and the damage

reported herein would probably be excessive if compared to less succulent

plants growing in full sun. Hence it would be unlikely for an applicator

to obtain any more damage with these miticides on these species than was

obtained in this test.


EXPERIMENT 2***

Materials and Methods

Treatments were conducted under 57% wood lath shading on actively.

growing plants established in 6-inch diam black plastic containers.

Plants were grown in a sand-peat-muck nursery soil mix -(-12:1 by volume)

and were fertilized with 0.7 oz of 18-6-12 Osmocote slow-release ferti-

lizer/pot at the start of the experiment. Water was supplied as needed

by overhead sprinklers.

Malathion, ethion, and combinations of each with FC-435 citrus spray

oil, as shown in Table-3, were applied to the plants by foliar spray-with---.

a 2-gal compressed CO2 sprayer (ca 40 psi). Two applications of each for-

mulation were made 4 weeks apart and plants were sprayed to the point of

run-off. Treatments were applied May 25 and June 22, 1976. The temperatures--

on the days of application were between 85 and 900F.

All plants were arranged into 4 identical blocks of 11 rows each con-

taining 28 plant species. Two rows of each block served as untreated checks

with the other 10 rows each receiving 1 of the treatments, therefore, 4 plants

of each species were sprayed with each treatment. Plywood shields were used

between each row during spraying to minimize drift between treatments.
***Data previously published as: Reinert, J. A., and P. L. Neel. 1976.
Evaluation of phytotoxicity of malathion, ethion, and combinations of
FC-435 spray oil with each on twenty-eight species of environmental
plants under slat shade. Proc. Fla. State Hortic. Soc. 89: (in press).











Table 3. Insecticides, formulations, and rates of active ingredient
per 100 gal of water used in phytotoxicity evaluations.
AI/100 Gal
Insecticide (lb) (%)
chemical oil
a Malathion 57%EC 1.25
b Malathion 57%EC + FC-435 oil 1.25 0.5
c Malathion 57%EC + FC-435 oil 1.25 0.7
d Malathion 57%EC + FC-435 oil 1.25 1.0
e FC-435 oil 1.0
f FC-435 oil 1.3
g Ethion 4EC 0.25 -
h Ethion 4EC 0.37 -
i Ethion + FC-435 oil 0.47ECz 0.37 0.5
j Ethion + FC-435 oil 0.625ECz 0.37 0.7
ZTreatments consisted of formulated mixtures.------

Plant damage was rated on a 0-5 scale, with 0 representing no appar-

ent damage and 5 very severe damage. Notes on the type of damage obser-

ved were also made. Types of foliar injury symptoms included burning of

the tip (T), blade (B), or margin (M): blade yellowing and/or mottling

chlorosiss) (C); cupping or deformation of the blade (D); and spotting or

oil-soaking-of-the blade (S).- Leaf fall (F) would typically follow-

chlorosis symptoms*-in a number-of plants. : Iansome cases the shoot apex

was killed (A).

Results and Discussion

The amount and type of injury to each plant species are shown in

Table 4. Certain plants were quite sensitive to -all treatments whereas

others were very tolerant. Ethion was much safer than malathion on a

wider range of species at the rates used. Most oil and oil-insecticide

combinations caused greater injury than application of insecticide alone.

As the oil concentration was increased usually the amount of-damage was

increased. The most severe damage, both in degree and numbers of plant

species injured was caused by the malathion plus 0.7 and 1% oil emulsions.




Ia'6- U


Table 4. Phytotoxicityz evaluations of 10 pesticide rates or combinations
applied to foliage of 28 environmental plants.
Insecticides or Combinations from Table 1
Plant species a b c d e f g h i j


ria excelsa
hia wilkesiana

gus densiflorus
fia javanica


ia actinophylla
bucerus

a maxima
lidocarpus lutescens-
oba uvifera

um variegatum-
theca elegantissima
na marginata
benjamin

retusa

us calycinus

a-sinensis

coccinea

um volubile
rum japonicum
ona chinensis
a paniculata

oleander
endron selloum
porum ferrugineum
rpus macrophylla
m guajava

am suspensum
ia merrillii


0
ID

0
> 0


0.
1A,M
T
0
0
2S

IB
0
0
0

2.5B
M,T
2C, F
T
2C, F

0

0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0

0
0


0
IT

0
1B,T

.0
2B,T
F
0
0
2S

1B
0
0
0


0
2.5M
T
IT
3B,M
T
0
2A,B
D,T
0
0.5B
2. 5B
S
2M,T
0
0
1.5C
B


0 .0
2.5M 0

2B,T 0
4BM 2.5B


T
0
2.5A
B,D,
0.5S
0
2.5S


2.5B 3D,M 3D,M
M,T T T
2.5C 2.5C 3C,T
M,T,F M,T,F F
IC,T 2C,F 2.5C
F,S
0 IS 1.5B
M
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 3S
0 IB IC,S
T
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 2.5B
0 0 2C,T
1.5B 2B,D 3B,D


D,M
0
0


1,BT
0


0
0


0 0
2.5B,T'0


1.5B 1.5C 0
0 O' lID


0 0
0 0


0
0

0
1.5
B,b


0 0
0.5D ID


T


0
0
0

0
0
S0
0.5S


0
1S
0

0
0 -
0
SIC


0.5S 0.5S 2C,F 2C,F 2.5B
M,D,S
2C,F 2C,F 0 0 2C

IS iS IS IC,F 2.5C
F
0 0 0 0 0


0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
2B,S 3.5B
T,F
O.5D 0
0 0


0
0
0
0

0
0
-" 0
0
0


0
0
3S
0

0
0
0
0
2. SB

0
0


0
0
0

0
0
0
0

IS'

2.5C

3C,1
S,f
0

0
0
2.5S
0.!
M
0
0
0
0
2.5B

0
0
o









3c,
s,


3 observed phyto.,
svere damage, 5 =
pical bud'killed,
,formation of new


1 =
very


very slight damage, 2
severe damage.


= slight damage, 3 = moderage damage,


. = Marginal burn, B = Blade burn, T = Tip burn, C = Chlorosis,
leaves, F = Falling leaves, S =Spotting or oil soaking of leaves.


1












Under the conditions of these tests, the following plants were

sensitive to most treatments: Bischofia javanica, Bucida bucerus,

Ficus retusa, Hibiscus spp., and Psidium guajava. Most treated

plant species showed no injury at all.

Several of the plants including Caryota maxima, Coccoloba uvifera,

Ficus spp., Hibiscus rosa-sinensis, Ligustrum japonicum, Livistona

chinensis, and Murraya paniculata exhibited leaf spotting and/or oil

soaked spots as-a result-of the oil emulsions. The spotting abnormali-

ties had almost completely disappeared by 4-weeks following the final -

spray treatments when the final evaluations were made. This may have

been due to absorption of the oil and/or to continued expansion of the

leaves. Even L. chinensis, the most severely damaged species appeared

normal by this time.

On many plants the damage was most visible at the time of the 3-day

evaluation.-Thus,-even though-the final observation may-not have indi-.

cated much damageg,-the-phytotoxicity rating-in-Table 4 tends to reflect

the 3 day damage levels. In addition,-it:should be-stressed that these

tests were conducted under partial shade. Therefore, effects of these

treatments in full sun might not be directly comparable to results re---

ported here. Higher leaf-temperatures-in full sun might have resulted

in even more oil-induced phytotoxicity than we observed.


EXPERIMENT 3

Materials and Methods

In test 3, 46 species of environmental plants (listed in Table 5)

were evaluated for phytotoxicity due to repeated applications of acephate












(OrtheneR). Plants were grown and treated under conditions the same

as those enumerated for Experiment 2.

The plants were arranged into 4 identical blocks of 3 rows each

containing 46 plant species. One row of each block served as an un-

treated check, another row was treated with acephate at 0.5 lb AI/100

gal water, while the third row was treated with acephate at a rate of

1.0 lb AI/100 gal water. Therefore, 4 plants of each species were

sprayed with each treatment. Four applications of each rate were made

at weekly intervals with a 2-gal compressed air sprayer (ca 40 psi).

Plants were sprayed to the point of run-off. Sprays were applied on

September 7, 14, 21, and 28, 1976. Plants were examined within 3 days

following each application and at 6 weeks following the final treatment.

Results and Discussion

Of the 46 plant-species evaluated (Table 5) no plants were actually -

damaged by-a total of 4 applications of acephate; neither were any damaged----

chronically, i.e., no chemically induced distortions in new growth were ob-

served 6 weeks after the-final spray treatment. However, there was some dis-

tortion observed; apparently it was induced by mites which were not killed by

the repeated treatments with acephate. Upon close examination of these dis-

torted plants, high populations of Polyphagotarsonemus latus, a tarsonemid

mite, and Brevipalpus phoenicis, a tenuipalpid mite, were observed. This

apparently selective activity of acephate on mites could pose a problem in

situations where acephate might be used exclusively; resistant mites could

build up to damaging levels quickly and cause severe plant damage. Appar-

ently a predatory mite or other predator was eliminated by the acephate











treatments, thus allowing the 2 species of mites to develop unhampered.

In comparison, only very low, non-damaging populations of these mites

were observed on the untreated check plants.


Table 5. Environmental plants evaluated for phytotoxicity of acephate at
0.5 and 1.0 lb AI/100 gal.


Acalypha wilkesiana
Allamanda cathartica
Araucaria heterophylla
Asparagus densiflorus 'Sprengeri'
Bischofia javanica
Brassaia-actinophylla -
Bucida bucerus----..-
Buxus microphylla-Var. japonica -
Carissa grandiflora
Carissa grandiflora- __
Caryota maxima = C. rumphiana
Chrysalidocarpus lutescens
Clausena lansium
Coccoloba uvifera
Codiaeum variegatum Var. Pictum 'Brav,
Cydista aequinoctalis
Dizygotheca elegantissima
Dracaena marginata
Eriobotrya japonica
Eugenia uniflora ~-
Ficus benjamin
Ficus retus (F.- nitida-is a synonym)
Gardenia jasminoides


Hibiscus calycinus = calyphyllus
Hibiscus rosa-sinensis
Ixora coccinea
Ixora coccinea 'Super King'
Jasminum volubile
Lagerstromia speciosa
Ligustrum japonicum
--Livistona chinensis -.
Malpighia coccigera
Mangifera indica
SManilkara zapota
Murraya paniculata
Nerium oleander
Pittosporum ferrugineum
o' Pittosporum tobira 'Wheeleri'
Podocarpus macrophyllus
Psidium guajava
Schinus terebenthifolius
Tabebuia argentea
Tabebuia pentaphylla-------
Trachelospermum-jasminoides
Veitchia merrillii-
Viburnum suspensum




University of Florida Home Page
© 2004 - 2010 University of Florida George A. Smathers Libraries.
All rights reserved.

Acceptable Use, Copyright, and Disclaimer Statement
Last updated October 10, 2010 - - mvs